5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Odessa.
6.  In the period between 10 September and 13 October 1999 the applicant had in-patient treatment in the Odessa Region Psychiatric Hospital (“the hospital”) which is a State-run institution. In 2000 she was registered with the Odessa Region Psychoneurological Dispensary (“the psychoneurological dispensary”) as a person with potential mental problems.
7.  On 24 September 2003 the applicant was assessed by a doctor at the psychoneurological dispensary and referred to the hospital for in-patient treatment for a serious mental disorder. However, the applicant ignored the referral and stayed at home with her mother. A report of the applicant’s assessment was provided to the hospital.
8.  In the next few days the applicant’s condition worsened and her behaviour became aggressive towards her mother and neighbours. The mother and the housing maintenance authority therefore complained to the hospital about the applicant’s conduct.
9.  In the morning of 28 September 2003 the applicant was taken to the hospital by ambulance and was assessed by a psychiatrist of the hospital, who concluded that she needed to be hospitalised for a serious mental disorder. The applicant was therefore kept in the hospital.
10.  On 29 September 2003 a panel of three different psychiatrists of the hospital assessed the applicant once again and issued a report stating that she was a danger to society due to her serious mental disorder, which required in-patient psychiatric treatment. The psychiatrists specified in the report that the applicant’s manner of communication with her mother and neighbours was aggressive; she threatened them, threw glass jars, bottles and vases off the balcony, which was on the fifth floor, played loud music at night and damaged property in the apartment.
11.  The hospital therefore lodged an application with a local court, seeking authorisation for compulsory admission to hospital in accordance with sections 14 and 16 of the Psychiatric Assistance Act.
12.  On 30 September 2003 a judge at the local court conducted an on‑site hearing of the applicant’s case in the administration wing of the hospital. The hearing was held in the presence of a prosecutor and one of the doctors who had assessed the applicant earlier. Following the hearing the court allowed the application and held as follows:
“... having examined the case file and heard a representative of [the hospital] and a prosecutor, the court considers that the application in question should be allowed.
It appears from the case file that the patient was taken from home to [the hospital] by the ambulance after showing signs of mental illness which suggested that she was a danger to society.
A panel of psychiatrists [of the hospital] has concluded that the patient should have in-patient treatment.
Relying on the Psychiatric Assistance Act and Article 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court
has decided that
[M.] should be compulsorily hospitalised to undergo medical treatment.
The decision shall not be subject to appeal. ...”
13.  On 19 December 2003 the compulsory treatment was completed and the applicant was discharged from the hospital.
14.  According to the applicant, the sanitary and hygienic conditions in which she was kept in the hospital were unsatisfactory.
15.  On 15 July 2004 the applicant was assessed by a doctor at the psychoneurological dispensary and referred to the hospital for in-patient treatment for a serious mental disorder. The applicant refused the proposed treatment and stayed at home. A report of the assessment of the applicant was sent to the hospital.
16.  After the assessment, the applicant’s condition worsened in a similar way as before the second hospitalisation and the neighbours and the housing maintenance authority complained to the hospital about her behaviour.
17.  In the morning of 19 July 2004 the applicant was taken to the hospital by ambulance and assessed by a psychiatrist there, who concluded that she was suffering from a mental disorder and needed to be hospitalised. The applicant was therefore kept in the hospital.
18.  On 20 July 2004 a panel of three psychiatrists of the hospital, including the psychiatrist who had assessed the applicant the previous day, issued a report stating that the applicant was a danger to society due to her serious mental disorder and that she needed in-patient treatment. The hospital therefore applied to the court for an order for compulsory admission.
19.  On 21 July 2004 the local court allowed the application, following an on-site hearing held in the administration wing of the hospital. The hearing was attended by the prosecutor and one of the psychiatrists who had previously assessed the applicant. The court held as follows:
“... having examined the case file and heard a representative of [the hospital] and a prosecutor, the court considers that the application in question should be allowed.
It appears from the case file that on 19 July 2004 the patient was taken from home to [the hospital] by ambulance after showing signs of a serious mental disorder. For this reason a panel of psychiatrists found that the applicant was a danger to society and should be compulsorily admitted to [the hospital] for in-patient treatment.
The representative of [the hospital] has submitted that the patient should be admitted to the hospital and treated for a serious mental disorder.
Having regard to all the circumstances, the court comes to the conclusion that the patient’s compulsory hospitalisation is required.
Relying on the Psychiatric Assistance Act and Article 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court
has decided that
[M.] should be compulsorily hospitalised to undergo medical treatment.
The decision shall not be subject to appeal. ...”
20.  On 8 September 2004 the applicant was discharged from the hospital on completion of the treatment.
21.  On 13 February 2006 the applicant was assessed by a doctor at the psychoneurological dispensary, who concluded that the applicant’s mental disorder had recurred.
22.  On 17 February 2006 the applicant made a written application for admission to the hospital for treatment. The application was signed only by the applicant. According to the applicant, she had been compelled to do so under the threat of never being discharged from the hospital. She had been in poor health, mentally and physically, that day.
23.  Subsequently, the application was marked and signed by a member of hospital staff, designating the department of the hospital to which the applicant was to be assigned.
24.  According to the applicant, the regime under which she was kept in the hospital was strict, as she had to stay in the hospital for the whole day; her movements within the premises of the hospital were restricted; and her personal belongings were limited in number and inventoried.
25.  On 19 April 2006 the applicant was discharged from the hospital.
26.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Suvorovskyy District Court of Odessa against Odessa Regional Oncological Hospital, seeking reinstatement in the position of doctor and payment of salary arrears.
27.  On 9 February 2005 the court rejected her claim as unsubstantiated. On 15 June 2005 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.
28.  On the expiration of the time-limit the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court against the judgment of 9 February 2005. The applicant did not request the Supreme Court to extend the time‑limit.
29.  On 28 October 2005 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible as submitted out of time.